2002-02-27-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF FEBRUARY 27, 2002 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Sclectmen's Room, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Galaitsis with members, Chase, Kastorf and planning staff Garber, McCall- Taylor and Tap present. Mr. Davies and Mr. Harden were absent. ARTICLES FOR 2002 TOWN MEETING ZONING AMENDMENTS Article 17, Zoning By -Law, Technical Corrections, Public Hearing Mr. Galaitsis called the public hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. There were four people in the audience. Mr. Garber explained the intent of the proposed technical corrections to the Zoning By -Law. The changes proposed in items A, B and C would correct grammatical errors and a subsection reference. The last two changes, D and E, are at the suggestion of the Building Commissioner. They would remove unnecessary language from the Lexington Zoning By -Law regarding parking for physically handicapped persons, which is now governed by state law. Mr. Ephraim Weiss, Town Meeting member, Precinct 5, asked if the state law was more or less restrictive than the existing by -laws. He thinks it is a question that will be asked at Town Meeting. He also suggested adding n/a to the last cell in the table in Section 11.7.2. Mr. Kanter agreed that the table, although based on the existing by -law, could be clarified. There being no further discussion, on the motion of Mr. Kastorf, seconded by Ms. Chase, the Board voted unanimously, 3 -0, to recommend that the Town Meeting approve article 17. The hearing was closed at 7:48 p.m. Article 18, Zoning By -Law, Setbacks for Sheds, Public Hearing Mr. Galaitsis opened the hearing at 7:48 p.m. There were four people in the audience. Ms. McCall- Taylor explained that the Building Commissioner requested this amendment, which would allow a shed to be placed closer to the lot line by right. A storage shed is a building according to the Zoning By -Law; therefore it is subject to Table 2, Schedule of Dimensional Controls. Under the current rules, it must be set back 30' from the front, and 15' from the side and rear property lines. Mr. Frederickson contends that the Board of Appeals gets a fair number of requests for variances to allow sheds closer to the lot line than 15' and most often grants these requests. Mr. Kanter asked what other structure is allowed within the yard setbacks. Ms. McCall - Taylor responded that a six -foot fence is allowed up to the property line. Mr. Kanter spoke against allowing sheds to be placed within the setback by right. He believes the neighbors should have a chance to comment on a neighboring shed's placement, as it impacts their view. Mr. Weiss stated his preferences for a setback equal at least to the height of the shed. Mr. Kastorf moved that the hearing be continued to March 20 to allow time to ascertain if the Building Commissioner and the Board of Appeals still want to proceed. Ms. Chase seconded the motion and the Board approved it unanimously, by a vote of 3 -0. The hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m. Article 19, Zoning By -Law, Definitions, Public Hearing Mr. Galaitsis opened the hearing at 8:00 p.m. There were 5 people in the audience. Mr. Garber explained that the impetus for these proposed changes to some definitions in the zoning By -Law arose during drafting of the house impact review article. They are intended to make it easier to find and comprehend definitions related to measuring building size. The